January 25, 2006
Lurch Speaks, How Truthful is HE?
In light of recent statements by John Kerry essentially calling President Bush a liar, I think it might be reasonable to bring back this little issue.
360 days have passed since you promised America to sign your Form 180 and release all of the information surrounding your discharge from the United States Navy....
So WHEN are you going to do it Mr Kerry? If you want to pontificate on the honesty of another, you should be willing to demonstrate your own qualifications as a truth teller.
H/T to Wild Thing for the reminder, and the photo
Posted by: Delftsman3 at
07:44 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.
Galloway: Traiter of the year, 2005
Galloway to Uday Hussein: “
I’d like you to know that we are with you ‘til the end.”
I certainly hope that Mr. Galloway's constitutents take care of this human wannabe the next time he sits for election.
Wild Thing
Posted by: Delftsman3 at
07:24 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.
January 18, 2006
R. I. P. Winchester
March 1, 2006, will be a sad day indeed for all of us "gun nuts". It will be the last day of the REAL Winchester rifle. When the Repeating Arms Co. closes it's doors on that day for the last time, it will truly be the end of an era.
The Winchester was the "rifle that won the West", and although the name may go on, a Belgian,Japanese, or Portugese product isn't the real thing. All the old style models will be discontinued, including the venerable model 94, arguably the finest rifle ever made. For those of you lucky enough to own one of these fine products of the armorers art, HOLD ON TO THEM. They are going to treble in worth in March. I had hoped to own a Model 94 one day, but with the coming price rise, that will never occur.
Posted by: Delftsman3 at
04:13 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.
1
uh... didn't you mean "March 1, 2006"???? Just askin'...
Posted by: Beth at January 18, 2006 05:42 PM (UCVYX)
2
Ever have just "One of those days"?
Thanks for catching the brain fart Beth.
Posted by: delftsman3 at January 18, 2006 05:51 PM (HNGvp)
3
I liked the '94' and for what it was designed for-a saddle gun-it is great. But I prefer the side eject of the Marlin and Savage 99 over the '94'. But I do like the model 70 bolts and the model 12 and 1200 shotguns. Maybe someone somewhere will make them again someday.
Posted by: GUYK at January 19, 2006 07:24 PM (iAhlK)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 16, 2006
Stuck on Stupid
John Stossel turns
his spotlight on public education...his view? We're "stuck on stupid" and the major blame for it can be layed at the feet of the NEA for stifleing competition.
The time has come for vouchers, and more freedom in homeschooling.
Posted by: Delftsman3 at
11:54 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Stossel has written his excommunication order with ABC, the NEA isn't going to surrender their Socialist indoctrination rights over American minds any more than Fidel Castro is going to send Elian Gonzales to an American parochial school. John is spot on about the cause though.
Posted by: Jack at January 17, 2006 11:49 AM (XcRxp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
"faked", but true....
Once again the New York Slimes have resorted to the "
fake but true" method of reporting. This time it was in the use of a photograph instead of words, but the effect is the same. The photo has been taken off the on-line edition of the paper, and a disclaimer correcting the original assertion that the ordnance in question was the remains of a rocket used by American forces was posted...but the damage was already done.
From the link above:
The picture shows a sad little boy, with a turbaned man next to him, a little bit further from the camera, amid the ruins of a house. Other men and boys peer in from the background. The photo is captioned:
“Pakistani men with the remains of a missile fired at a house in the Bajur tribal zone near the Afghan border.”
The story it accompanies is about the apparently failed attempt to take out al QaedaÂ’s #2 man al Zawahiri, with a missile attack from a Predator drone.
“How sad!” readers are encouraged to think. “These poor people are on the receiving end of awful weapons used by the clumsy minions of Bush. And all to no avail. Isn’t it terrible? Why must America do such horrible misdeeds? Bush must go!”
Anyone that had a passing aquaintence with military ordnance would immedietly identify the "remains of a missile fired from a Predator drone" as either a 152 or 155 MM artillery shell....a "dud' artillery shell, from the rifleing grooves on the body of the shell.
Seems that those vaunted "layers of fact checkers and editors" fell down on the job...AGAIN.
So..a photo is staged to give the impression of inept military action (American, that is) and to cast the opponents in a sorrowful light of the poor innocent victims of same. The action was real; there was a purported gathering of Al Quida operatives in the three houses struck by MISSILES, but the photo was fake, and presented in such a way to denigrate our soldiers. It was another case of "fake, but true" method of trying to shape public opinion..
It might have worked better if just one of those fact checkers knew the difference between their own black holes of ego driven agenda driven "reporting" and a blast hole from a 155MM shell.
Just incidentally..it appears that the shell has a fuse still attached, so anyone within ten yards of that shell was playing high explosive Russian roulette...no doubt that Bush would have been blamed for that as well..
Hey Achmed, hit that with a hammer!
Posted by: Delftsman3 at
03:45 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 434 words, total size 3 kb.
January 13, 2006
SLIME!
Mamamontezz sent me the link to
this story. I can't post on it; it just disgusts me too much.
All I can say is I sincerely hope that both defendants get the maximum penalty allowed by law.
Given my choice, they would be held for life in a sealed cell that was flooded twice a day, just to the point where they could drown....good thing the Constitution has that little prohibition from "cruel and unusual punishment" to protect slime like this from people like me....good that I'm protected from sinking to their level.
Posted by: Delftsman3 at
10:02 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.
January 09, 2006
Will the Progressives ever realize we're in a WORLD WAR?
HERE IS yet another example of plain speaking by a representative of Islamofacism, outlineing their end goal; nothing less than a world-wide Islamic state under Shar'ia.
Progressives are constantly trying to blame the US and/or "Western Culture" as the cause of the conflict, yet the Islamofacists themselves make no such claims.
They state their end goal clearly enough, as well as continually demonstrate their willingness to commit any act of atrocity in furthurance of that goal:
"Second, install sharia (Islamic law) on the entire Earth and spread Islamic justice there (...). The attacks will not cease until after the victory of Islam and the setting up of sharia," he swore.
~Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (emph. mine D)
HOW'S THIS for "hate speech"?:
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, said in an audio tape put onto the Internet Sunday that rockets had been fired at Israel from Lebanon last month "on the instructions" of the network's overall chief Osama bin Laden.
"The rocket firing at the ancestors of monkeys and pigs from the south of Lebanon was only the start of a blessed in-depth strike against the Zionist enemy"
These are the people that Cindy Sheehan considers "freedom fighters"?!?
Also interesting to note:
"Zarqawi also said the guerrillas had carried out nearly 800 operations against "the crusader forces" since the occupation of Iraq, putting "crusader" casualties at around 40,000 soldiers."
Funny, I thought we had only lost 2038 ? Not to make light of those that paid the ultimate cost of freedom, but thats quite a discrepancy; between 2038 and 40,000....maybe it's some new form of Islamic math?
Posted by: Delftsman3 at
01:08 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.
1
maybe the ragheads are counting all those civilians they have killed in various places around the globe
Posted by: GUYK at January 09, 2006 03:12 PM (iAhlK)
2
What makes you think 'progressives' don't realize we're in a war?
I don't see anyone denying we're in the middle of a war. Of course I don't know if you could say 'the middle' because we're in the midst of a war with no end. How do you win the war on terror? By defeating the terrorist. Which considerning we don't know who is and who is not a terrorist and exactly where they're all hiding out, it's pretty much an unending and unwinnable war.
Let me ask you this, how is the idea of spreading Islam throught the world any different than the idea of spreading Christianity? Or democracy for that matter. Of course we think our religion and our idea of government is better. It's OUR's it has to be better. But guess what? Muslims think THEIR's is better. They believe there's is the one true God. Granted, most Christians would never harm anyone in their pursuit of spreading their faith, but one only need look at Pat Robertson and James Dobson to know even Christians have their radicals.
Do you think for one minute that George W. Bush is not as determined and as passionate about his goal of 'spreading democracy' as Abu Musab al-Azrqawi is about spreading Islam? Do you understand they see us as the infidels?
The truth is we are engaged in a war of religion and beliefs. It's becoming increasingly clear that both sides are willing to do ANYTHING to win. That, Delfsman is the realty of the war in which we are in.
Posted by: wanda at January 09, 2006 04:44 PM (cVji6)
3
Wanda, your idiocy is showing.
The "war" between Islam and civilization was declared about 1200 years ago, by Mohammed.
You also seem to think that spreading "democracy" is a bad thing, and should be halted.
Of course, being a Regressive, you aren't a big fan of individuality, or the rights of the individual to speak for themselves. Dialectic Materialism doesn't allow for individuality. You really should read up on the philosophy that guides your beliefs and actions.
Moron.
Posted by: the Humble Devildog at January 09, 2006 07:14 PM (hcTHz)
4
"how is the idea of spreading Islam throught the world any different than the idea of spreading Christianity? Or democracy for that matter."
Well Wanda, the difference is that we don't behead those that won't convert, we don't specifically target women and babies with bombs.
Radical Islam is a byproduct of the tyranies that much of the ME lives under, so yes, I do believe spreading democracy is a way to fight terrorism. Democracy can free people that would otherwise BECOME terrorists, because they see no other choice. (yes that is a dream at the moment, but who said dreamers were the exclusive province of the Progressives?; the difference is we don't pretend the dream can be the reality if we just say it is so long and loud enough, we do the nitty gritty, dreary work to prepare the soil so that the dream may blossom.)
".. our idea of government is better. It's OUR's it has to be better. But guess what? Muslims think THEIR's is better."
But ours IS demonstrably better, not just because it's the system WE live under, but because it provides more and better for the greatest number of people. We lament the plight of the "poor" in this country, but that's a relative term..only in America do the poor own cars, have airconditioning, and color tvs, and if a certain Democratic proposal goes through they will soon have computers and broadband access PROVIDED by Uncle Sugar too.
My parents raised 6 kids on $60-75 a week, so I know what it's like to be "poor",but compared to the REAl poor in most of the world, we were living in luxury.
"but one only need look at Pat Robertson and James Dobson to know even Christians have their radicals."
Yeah we DO have our "radicals" and nutjobs, but that's ANOTHER difference between "us' and "them"...here, we laugh at them, there, they follow them as holy men, to the point of strapping semtex on their children at their "holy man's" command and sending them out to kill "infidel" women and children. THERE the president of their country calls Jews the "progenitors of apes and swine", and strangly enough, without one word of approbation from the PC Progressives. I'm sick of the attempts to make moral equivilencies were truly none exist.
"Do you think for one minute that George W. Bush is not as determined and as passionate about his goal of 'spreading democracy' as Abu Musab al-Azrqawi is about spreading Islam?"
I sure HOPE so! Democracy will be the only way to prevent a holocaust the likes of which I don't believe anyone younger than 70 or so can even truly imagine. I have second hand "memories" of the Death Camps and the brutalities of WW2 from my father, who lived it, and I don't think for one moment that what I imagine and "remember" comes even close to the reality
"Do you understand they see us as the infidels?"
I truly believe that the average conservative actually understands that better than the average progressive. you see, WE actually understand what the term means in their context, and understand the depth of what it means to them. All too many progressives just consider it a hollow bargaining position from which to strike a bargain from.
"It's becoming increasingly clear that both sides are willing to do ANYTHING to win. That, Delfsman is the realty of the war in which we are in."
There JUST may be hope for you yet, Wanda. As soon as you come to realize the underlying truths of that statement, we'll be here to welcome you into the fold of a TRUE reality based world. A world where we see it as it truly is; with the HOPE of someday turning it into what we would WISH it to be.
Posted by: delftsman3 at January 09, 2006 11:13 PM (Y5CFT)
5
Humble, your response is why I don't comment on more rightwing blogs. You people are incapable of having a civil conversation.
Please tell me how it is that I can be both a regressive and a progressive?
Being a "pro"gressive, I'm a big fan of individuality, and the rights of the individual to speak for themselves. Apparently far more than you are. Since you have no respect for me or my opinions.
Democracy is not a bad thing. But neither is Islam. It is only the radicals on both sides that want to force others to bow to their idea of what is 'right'. If what we're experiencing in this country today is the kind of democracy your talking about, then maybe we should try sweeping around our own back door before we go trying to tell other people how to live their lives.
People of other countries have their own cultures, their own ways of life. The United States has no business trying to force them to bend to our idea of government or religion. It is one thing to defend oneself from those who attack you. It's entirely another to try to force your ideals on others.
I believe to each his own. I believe in the right of every individual to worship as he or she pleases. I believe in the right of free speech and the right to make one's own personal private choices. I believe the government should stay out of my bedroom, my bank account, and my library account.
If there's anyone who's displaying regressive characteristics it's you.
Delftsman, I find it interesting that you would mention the holocaust. I recently read an article by a holocaust survivor who said he was moving back to Germany. Why? Because he said he recognized what what happening here in this country. He'd seen it before. I fear he may be right. I know you don't want to believe that, but the reality is the 'right' of today has more in common with the narrowminded one one deminsional viewpoint of communisim than liberals ever could. Liberals by definition believe in liberation, not repression. Am I a liberal? You bet I am. Am I progressive? Yes sir! Do I support the rights of all granted by our Constitution? Yes I do. Do I think we have the right or responsiblity to force those beliefs on people of other countries? I do not.
Democracy is a great thing. If it's really a democracy.
Posted by: wanda at January 10, 2006 06:57 PM (cVji6)
6
HDD did paint with too broad a brush when it comes to you Wanda, but when you align yourself with dogs, you're going to suffer fleas.
"I believe in the right of every individual to worship as he or she pleases."
UNLESS they do it in public, of course. THAT might offend someone.
"Do I support the rights of all granted by our Constitution?"
WITH the exception of the 2nd. Amendment. I believe you do think you support the rights in the Constitution (with the one exception above)...even the rights not enumerated in it, but put in place under "emanations of the penumbra" thereof.
"Democracy is a great thing. If it's really a democracy."
One problem there Wanda..we are NOT and were never designed to be a democracy, we are a Republic. The U.S. certainly has it's faults, but it's still the closest thing to goal of individual freedom and opportunity that has ever existed. Only the Progressives seem to think that "if it's not perfect, it must be evil".
"The United States has no business trying to force them to bend to our idea of government or religion. It is one thing to defend oneself from those who attack you."
I would agree with you but for one thing,
Wanda...just WHAT do you do when the end goal of a different culture and/or religion is your utter destruction? THEY say it's their goal. THEY have demonstrated a willingness and an ability to turn their rhetoric into physical action. THEY say that they will continue until they have achieved their goal. EVERY time diplomacy was engaged in, THEY used it as a way to rebuild strength to be able to continue the fight. We gave them money for development and the betterment of their people, and it was used for the benefit of the despots and their arms aquisition programs, even as they continued to build resentments against their benefactors.
There is a time for diplomacy, and there is a time for arms; I don't supppose it's any secret which time I believe it is.
Posted by: delftsman3 at January 10, 2006 11:30 PM (Y5CFT)
7
Interestingly enough, Wanda, Delfts' father is a non-Jewish holocaust survivor as well. And given the opportunity to return to Europe, I can truly say he would not avail himself of it.
Second, and this is to all of you from both ends of this situation, please remember that this country does not base its method of governing on Democracy. This is not a democracy by any stretch of the imagination. And I, for one, would rue the day this nation ever becomes one.
A democratically elected Representative Republic is what we live in, regardless of what Miss Smith may have told all of you in the third grade. If we lived in the "Democracy" that so many either believe we have, or that so many more wish we have, we'd be mired in ridiculous votes and referenda on a weekly basis. Do I really want Mob Rule? No, and absent the pitchforks and torches that is what a true Democracy is.
I'll take a pass on that, please. And if that is what your friend wants, Wanda, I wish him well and good luck. He'll never find it, and he'll find himself in fear of the Mob once again. You'd think people would learn, wouldn't you?
Posted by: Mamamontezz at January 10, 2006 11:58 PM (Y5CFT)
8
Okay, Wanda, you asked for it.
You label yourself a "progressive", but, you are actually a REgressive. Your "ideas" on individuality and governing have already been tried, MANY times in history. Each time, those "ideas" were a colossal FAILURE.
The "progressive" movement is based upon Dialectic Materialism, which is the philosophy created by Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels, which they then used to create the economic model of Communism. DM holds that individuals have NO effect on society, only movements do. Don't believe me? Look it up. Research it. I did.
Individuality is anathema to the "progressive" movement. What are you "progressing" towards? Communism. Communism doesn't recognize the rights of the individual.
In addition, EVERY SINGLE PRIMARY ADVOCATE of "individual rights" in the US since about 1920 has been a Communist. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE! I do not speak of the current Useful Idiots (Stalin's term for you all), but, the philosophers and thinkers who shaped the arguement.
As to your idiocy of "We don't have the right to tell immigrants how to live in the US": Are you aware that Islam allows slavery, the beating of women, forced prostitution, killing of women, counts women as less than half a man, and does not recognize the rights of others to be non-Muslim? And those are just the highlights of it! According to you, Muslims should be allowed to follow THEIR religion, even though it runs counter to our LAWS and culture! What idiocy!
In addition to that, name me ONE country that has prospered without a central cultural identity. JUST ONE!
I'll give you a hint: Find the Austrio-Hungarian Empire on your map sometime, and book a flight there. That should keep you occupied for the rest of your life.
Posted by: the Humble Devildog at January 11, 2006 12:19 AM (hcTHz)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 08, 2006
Weird Howard Puts his foot in it ---AGAIN
“There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money and we’ve looked through all of the F.E.C. reports to make sure that’s true…I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people, and now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.”
~Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean CNNÂ’s Late Edition,1/8/2006
Read it and weep Howie!
40 Of The 45 Members Of The Senate Democrat Caucus:
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) Received At Least – $22,500
Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) Received At Least – $6,500
Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) Received At Least – $1,250
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Received At Least – $2,000
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Received At Least – $20,250
Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Received At Least – $21,765
Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) Received At Least – $7,500
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Received At Least – $12,950
Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) Received At Least – $8,000
Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Received At Least – $7,500
Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Received At Least – $14,792
Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Received At Least – $79,300
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Received At Least – $14,000
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Received At Least – $2,000
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) Received At Least – $1,250
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) Received At Least – $45,750
Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Received At Least – $9,000
Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) Received At Least – $2,000
Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) Received At Least – $14,250
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Received At Least – $3,300
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Received At Least – $98,550
Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Received At Least – $28,000
Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) Received At Least – $4,000
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,000
Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Received At Least – $29,830
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Received At Least – $14,891
Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Received At Least – $10,550
Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) Received At Least – $78,991
Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) Received At Least – $20,168
Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) Received At Least – $5,200
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) Received At Least – $7,500
Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) Received At Least – $2,300
Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) Received At Least – $3,500
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Received At Least – $68,941
Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) Received At Least – $4,000
Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) Received At Least – $4,500
Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Received At Least – $4,300
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Received At Least – $29,550
Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,250
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) Received At Least – $6,250
Lil' Howie proves yet again that he doesn't live in the same world as the rest of us. I just hope that he keeps bloviating though, he's the best thing for the Republican party since they passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Another rewrite of history that doesn't seem to be recalled, but that's a different post.)
I blatently stole this from Wild Thing, only I don't have the cool art work.
Posted by: Delftsman3 at
11:01 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 591 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Source on those numbers? I've been trying to confirm this and can't find the source.
Posted by: Steph Mineart at January 09, 2006 11:16 AM (s2yPb)
2
Steph, check the CBO and the Campaign finance offices, they're all a matter of public record.
Posted by: delftsman3 at January 09, 2006 12:06 PM (Y5CFT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
New Prayer
My friend Jack sent me this today, and even though I'm an Agnostic, I feel the same outrage at the anti-religion atitude in the government
schools indoctrination centers. The only thing that I can affirm is that, as long as there are quizzes, tests, and year end exams, they can never truly get prayer out of school.
Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.
If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.
Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.
We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
It's "inappropriate" to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such "judgments" do not belong.
We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.
It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!
Amen
If you aren't ashamed to do this, please pass this on.
Jesus said, " If you are ashamed of me," I will be ashamed
of you before my Father."
Not ashamed. Passing this on.
Posted by: Delftsman3 at
10:22 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.
January 06, 2006
"Justice"?!?!
Romeocat and
Misha do far more justice to
this story than I ever could.
I'll just limit myself to six words on the matter:
ROPE
JUDGE
TREE
(some assembly required)
Posted by: Delftsman3 at
10:08 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I just popped in here and saw the conservative wear image to the right which says "join the darkside"
How sadly appropriate that is.
Posted by: Navywxman at January 07, 2006 12:19 AM (qcIpc)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 03, 2006
Let the Citizens decide? NO, they won't vote the way WE want!
No matter how you feel about gay marriage, don't you think that it's up to the people of a state to determine whether or not to allow it?
Not according to the Gay and Lesbian Advocates & Defenders(GLAD) in Mass.
Gay marriage was "legalized" by a landmark court known as Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health in 2003. It ended "discrimination" in marriage by judicial fiat.
A number of citizens were incensed at this ruling and decided to request a ballot initiative be placed on the ballot calling for an amendment to the Mass. state constitution banning same sex marriage. Sounds like the American way, doesn't it? Letting the citizenry of a state decide what they will and will not allow in their state? Not according to GLAD. They contend that the citizens of the state can not constitutionally initiate any sort of plebacite to reverse a judicial ruling, that it can only originate from within the legislature. The REAL horror here is that they may be legally correct...Mass.'s constitution does seem to contain such a stricture. In other words, the people of the state have no voice in public policy question other than that which can be induced by one of their elected representatives. That seems to be reasonable on it's face...after all , that's why we elect representatives, to ensure that the will of the people is carried out in an orderly. measured manner, but it's discounting the fact that in todays PC world, it's the loudest minority that seems to get the most attention from the political class, and that class can be cowardly when faced with accusations of not being PC by an ultravocal minority, with the possible subsequent loss of their seats if they don't buckle to the pressure.
Seems to me that the good people of Mass. need to have TWO Constitutional reform referendums placed on the ballot in 2008. When enough people are dissatisfied with the current trend of major issues, it seems to me that it would be within their basic rights to attempt to redress those grievences with a public referendum. If they lose, fine, the people have made their voice known. But that isn't what GLAD believes. They KNOW that their position would be a hard fought one,and one where they could very possibly lose, and so would rather rely on the decision of one man in a black robe to press their agenda forward, no matter what the people may believe, and they're perfectly willing to stack the deck to ensure that the people will have no real voice in the matter.
That is could even be "legally" possible to do so points out to a flaw in the state constitution. But what else would you expect from a state that would continually re-elect an alcoholic manslaughterer to it's senior Senate seat position?
Posted by: Delftsman3 at
05:15 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 498 words, total size 3 kb.
1
They've got just what they deserve in that state, let's be Frank (Barney) about it and say they've got Ted Kennedy and Jean Fraud Kerry too. All Socialists.
Posted by: Jack at January 03, 2006 09:10 PM (9ltgc)
2
"No matter how you feel about gay marriage, don't you think that it's up to the people of a state to determine whether or not to allow it?"
ABSOLUTELY!
I couldn't agree with you more on this one.
Posted by: wanda at January 04, 2006 04:43 PM (cVji6)
3
actually the 14th amendment which privides for equal opportunity under the law for all has already decided it.
Posted by: GUYK at January 04, 2006 05:28 PM (iAhlK)
4
I don't like this "once the gays can marry who knows where it'll stop" thing. Thats a slippery slope fallacy. letting two men get married is HUGELY different than letting a woman marry a car. If my sister wants to marry her girlfriend, than I'm not going to stand in her way. I may not
like it, but I love her and would do anything to see her happy. *shrug*
Posted by: Alli at January 04, 2006 06:46 PM (9BW95)
5
It's not the joining of two people that bothers me, it's the false equivilence to marriage wherin the slippery slope resides.
Should a same sex couple have the same legal rights of inheritence and ownership ? ABSOLUTELY! Should a long term partner have a say in the medical treatment of an incapacitated loved one? ABSOLUTLEY! Should they have the right to live where they will? ABSOLUTELY!
Should they be considered "married"? ABSOLUTLY NOT! The word carries connotations that simply don't and CAN NOT apply to a same sex couple. We need to have some sort of legal recoginition of the bond of a same sex couple, but marriage isn't it.
My brother has had two such long term relationships Alli, and as you say, who am I to stand in the way of the happiness of two deserving people? But I just couldn't ever refer to them as "married"...they were lovers, best friends, life partners...but not married.
Posted by: delftsman3 at January 04, 2006 07:43 PM (1V3kn)
6
I don't like the term "marriage" either, but what is marriage other than a complete merging of two lives? 2 become 1 in the eyes of G-d, the state and the world. I dunno. I don't have the answers.
Posted by: Alli at January 05, 2006 01:08 PM (9BW95)
7
you know, an easy fix for this would be to drop the term "marriage" out of any legal context entirely. I, for one, wouldn't think any less of my wife and I if we were only considered a "legal union."
Posted by: cappy at January 08, 2006 11:47 PM (mb0+O)
8
Why not just call Gay joinings "legal unions", that way, they have the legal rights of marriage, and marriage itself isn't diluted.
It shows that the agenda here is NOT "equal rights" that that isn't acceptable to the gay community, it shows that they just want to blur traditional mores.
Posted by: delftsman3 at January 09, 2006 07:59 AM (Y5CFT)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
January 02, 2006
I am Queen..."Feds; care for my Peons"!
Let's see...Louisianna is ravaged by two hurricanes, and the Gov. blames the Federal govt. for not "responding quickly enough, WITH enough", even though SHE didn't fulfill her responsiblities to the safety of her people in any manner whatsoever...
What to do? Slash government expenses and have a possible layoff of 20% of state employees...oh, and remodel offices in the statehouse to the tune of $564,838...
Officials claimed that they feared that they would be successfully sued if they canceled the remodeling contract, bidded 30 days before Katrina hit....Riiiiiiiiight.
Gov. Blanco, I hope you enjoy your new Swedish granite countertops, frosted glass and plasma tv screens in your new offices as much as you can, I certainly hope that the people of Louisianna have enough common sense to ensure that you won't be able to do so after the next election.
Posted by: Delftsman3 at
05:49 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 154 words, total size 1 kb.
61kb generated in CPU 0.0942, elapsed 0.1391 seconds.
49 queries taking 0.0734 seconds, 159 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
